My hope is that there will be electoral co-operation between COPE, OneCity, and Jean Swanson (who plans to run again) in 2018, and that the left will focus on defeating the NPA rather than attacking each other, which is what happened in the by-election.

Case in point: The previous Vancouver School Board trustees who were fired by the province in October 2016 consisted of 4 NPA trustees, 4 Vision trustees, and one Green trustee. The Green trustee voted with the NPA trustees to make one of the NPA trustees the chiar of the board, and also voted with the NPA trustees on some other issues.

The Bc Green party ran a number of tech company CEO's as candidates in the recent provincial election, and federal Green Party leader Elizabeth May is a former Mulroney era staffer.

The main policy priority of the Green Parties in Canada is higher taxes on brown consumption -- carbon taxes, road tolls, mobility pricing ect. -- coupled with corresponding income tax cuts. Brown consumption taxes hurt lower income people the hardest; and if they actually reduce brown consumption, they also reduce government revenues.

The bigger obstacle to electoral co-operation on the left in Vancouver may be a desire on the part of OneCity to marginalize the rest of the left in Vancouver so that they can become the sole left force in Vancouver municipal politics.

I think the NPA will sweep back into power next October if Vision, the Greens, OneCity, and COPE don't all cooperate to avoid splitting the centre-left vote. And if they are in a position to do so, after the election they should implement STV for future elections.

I agree with JKR. Although I am not a fan of the Greens or Vision, to say the least, if the centre-left does not cooperate, all that will do is guarantee a NPA victory, as happened in the byelection when the NPA's Hector Bremner won with 27.8% of the vote. It should be easier to cooperate because the parties will be campaigning for ten at-large council seats rather than fighting to win a single seat.

So far so good. Everyone needs to remember that no one is going to dictate all the terms of a co-operative campaign, that is, if the goal is to win control of Vancouver City Council, etc. Remember right-wing NPA's Bremner won with only 28% support.

Vancouver civic party OneCity open to collaboration with “progressive forces” in 2018 election

Spencer is a good guy, I like him, but for him to suggest he might run for mayor is lunacy as it jeopardizes Horgan’s government. It’s too bad he was left out of cabinet but not everyone can there. Maybe they can find something else for him to focus on.

Now this is constructive leadership. Could not agree more with Don Davies. Nobody nor any political party is perfect. But if there is no compromise the right-wing will win like they did in the recently-election with what was it 23 or 27% of the vote.

It was a busy day in the world of Vancouver politics, with at least three meetings — the Vancouver Greens AGM, the COPE unity conference, and the GWAC AGM — all within hours of each other, and each overlapping. The most important, perhaps, was the COPE meeting.

Meeting downstairs at the Russian Hall, COPE invited the Vancouver Tenants Union, Team Jean, One City, the Vancouver Greens, and the Marpole Students for Modular Housing to each give 10 minute speeches about their organizations and their thoughts on a unity left position for the next municipal election.

Before the speakers began, the COPE chair was firm in noting that no decision has been made on anything approaching a unity slate, and that “left unity” is just an aspirational phrase. She quite specifically noted a separation with Jean Swanson and Team Jean. The sole purpose of the meeting, she said, was to talk and to listen, and that later COPE members would be allowed to decide which way they should go.

Derrick O’Keefe of the Vancouver Tenants’ Union kicked it off with a rousing speech. He announced they already had more than 1,000 members and that renters now had somewhere to go for legal assistance and a clear political voice. The Union was pushing for a 4-year rent freeze, rents to be attached to suites rather than tenancies, and for a lot more social and public housing. He closed off with a passionate call for unity to ensure that developers were no longer in power at City Hall, and to make the city a movement leader.

Jean Swanson spoke next, thanking COPE for its endorsement and support during the last by-election. She also approved the idea that the City and its structures should be used as a movement generator, and noted that a rent freeze was a centrepiece of her by-election campaign. She called for a return to door-to-door voter registration (to register as many tenants as possible), and for easier access to polling stations in the election period. She also had much to say about using the city to better embrace and further indigenous reconciliation.

One City split their time between two speakers. Christine Boyle was a founder of One City having been a longtime COPE member. She said their campaign would concentrate on renters and affordable housing, including a realistic definition of “affordable.” They supported a rent freeze and she thought Once City’s “luxury tax” was similar enough to Jean Swanson’s “mansion tax” to bring them together. They approved the idea of allpublic land being devoted exclusively to social housing. She aligned herself with thoughts of making the city a movement leader, and specifically suggested using the City structures to beef up the Tenants’ Union. She called for a coalition.

The other One City speaker, their co-chair Alison Atkinson insisted that the market was the problem not the solution to the housing crisis. She also reminded the meeting that the Vancouver School Board was a vital target for this election. She declared herself “scared” that NPA developers would take over control of the City. However, she said that discussion of “a combination” should hang fire until the unity discussions organized by the Vancouver District have been completed (see below).

Ishman Bhuiyan of the Marpole Students for Modular Housing announced that he was too young to vote, but showed himself a great speaker. He went through the history of the Marpole project and how the students had come tigether to help — and continue to welcome the new residents. His message to loud applause was that activist students need to be taken seriously.

Pete Fry of the Vancouver Greens arrived straight from the Greens AGM. Regular readers here will know that I am a great admirer of Pete’s but his message wasn’t I believe what we needed to hear. He made it clear the Green’s were not open to any form of coalition. However, he mentioned several times that a motion from the floor at their AGM has suggested Adriane Carr as the “consensus” mayoral candidate. On each occasion the most charitable view of this meeting’s reception to that idea would be “impassive.” Pete warned the meeting that the developers always played divide and conquer with the progressives, and that there are massive loopholes in the election financing legislation.

The best part of the meeting was seeing half the 100+ audience under thirty. The talk of unity and supporting policies was great. But there was a disappointing lack of actual concerted action.

The dark horse in all this is of course the Vancouver District Labour Council (VDLC) which was first mentioned, in passing, in the COPE chair’s introduction and the backroom dealings of which were confirmed by One City’s Atkinson. From what I can gather, the VDLC is actively pursuing an alliance between One City, the Greens, and the remnants of Vision Vancouver. It is hard to believe that a genuine and progressive COPE Board would be in favour of giving Vision a break, but who knows what might happen if the unions press hard enough.

One can almost smell Geoff Meggs behind all of this, and a possible Don Davies mayoral run. Depressing.

Vision was supposed to be progressive but is in bed with developers and now Vision is discredited to a certain extent and why Robertson is not running again as he would not win this time around

COPE used to be a major progressive political force Jenny Kwan Libby Davies, Mayor Larry Campbell and Councillor Jim Green but the last two split from COPE and COPE went off the rails with the likes of Tim Louis I think that’s why Vision eventually appeared on the scene

unless the opposition to the right-wing NPA unites the NPA will win and that is the delimma because they hate each other almost as much as they hate the right-wing

Mr. Magoo wrote:

From someone outside of Vancouver, what are "Vision" and "COPE"? Are they like political parties?

From someone outside of Vancouver, what are "Vision" and "COPE"? Are they like political parties?

​I see this has already been addressed, but perhaps I'll add a bit.

The NPA (Non Partisan Association) was the right wing coalition that ran candidates in Vancouver civic elections. It comes from a time when there was separate right-wing parties in BC. In order to maximise their chances, instead of running under existing party banners, they formed the coalition.

COPE (Committe of Progressive Electors - later changed to Coalition of Progressive Electors) goes back to the 60's. Again, a loose coalition of NDP and other leftist candidates (including Communist Party members), formed because the NDP would not run civic candidates, and, like the various right wing parties, they thought they would do better as a coalition.

One of the leading forces behind COPE was Harry Rankin. Rankin was a Communist Party member who also topped the councillor polls for years, although when he tried a run at Mayor, he lost. Shame really. He was very good. It's worthwhile to remember that Vancouver has never elected a full-on leftist as Mayor.

In the days of Larry Campbell as Mayor (2002 - by the way, Larry Campbell was the model for Da Vinci in 'Da Vinci's Inquest) there was more or less of an uneasy coalition between the the left-left, and the NDP left, which ended up splitting COPE, with the NDP left becoming Vision Vancouver.

In between there was all kinds of movement, a Liberal civic party called TEAM, which became the electoral vehicle for Mike Harcourt, who eventually became NDP premier of BC, the disappeaarance of the NPA, and subsequent ressurection, and quite a few election ups and downs for the left.

From someone outside of Vancouver, what are "Vision" and "COPE"? Are they like political parties?

​I see this has already been addressed, but perhaps I'll add a bit.

The NPA (Non Partisan Association) was the right wing coalition that ran candidates in Vancouver civic elections. It comes from a time when there was separate right-wing parties in BC. In order to maximise their chances, instead of running under existing party banners, they formed the coalition.

COPE (Committe of Progressive Electors - later changed to Coalition of Progressive Electors) goes back to the 60's. Again, a loose coalition of NDP and other leftist candidates (including Communist Party members), formed because the NDP would not run civic candidates, and, like the various right wing parties, they thought they would do better as a coalition.

One of the leading forces behind COPE was Harry Rankin. Rankin was a Communist Party member who also topped the councillor polls for years, although when he tried a run at Mayor, he lost. Shame really. He was very good. It's worthwhile to remember that Vancouver has never elected a full-on leftist as Mayor.

In the days of Larry Campbell as Mayor (2002 - by the way, Larry Campbell was the model for Da Vinci in 'Da Vinci's Inquest) there was more or less of an uneasy coalition between the the left-left, and the NDP left, which ended up splitting COPE, with the NDP left becoming Vision Vancouver.

In between there was all kinds of movement, a Liberal civic party called TEAM, which became the electoral vehicle for Mike Harcourt, who eventually became NDP premier of BC, the disappeaarance of the NPA, and subsequent ressurection, and quite a few election ups and downs for the left.

I hope I'm wrong, but I think the left is going to be wiped out this time around. We'll see.

The NPA is basically the municipal version of The Coalition...the "everybody but the damn socialists" group that started as the Liberal-PC coalition in the Forties, was replaced by the Socreds in 1952, and which now more or less exists as the BC Liberals of today...

I've always found the name "Non-Partisan Alliance" deeply arrogant-it's implication being "we are the sole voice of serious, commonsense governance...our ideas are so intrinsically superior and so far above debate and discussion when compared to anyone else's ideas that there's really no reason we should have to ASK the voters to put us in power".

Thanks for the intel. I guess I was always a bit confused in that "parties" didn't seem to be part of the structure of municipal government elections in the way that they are at the provincial or federal level (e.g. the Mayor is not the "leader" of the municipal "party" that wins the most council seats).

I gather it's more or less just some political shorthand ("these people all believe in these same things/have these same goals")?

In BC there is a stream of thought that municipal politics is less ideological. This leads to more support for individuals over party. The absense of a ward system supports this view as well. People can vote divide their votes between the parties allowing the stronger candidates of a losing team to avoid defeat. Harry Rankin (a friendly traveller, not a party member) was able to top the polls even when COPE went down to defeat.

Also it crosses political lines. In New Westminster, a left stronghold, municipal parties are not supported even though the candidates are clearly alligned with political camps. The right will play to this theme more often though, saying their candidates are above ideology and their associations are not partisan.

Shauna Sylvester, the current head of SFU Centre for Dialogue, is expected to launch her campaign for mayor this week. Photo Dan Toulgoet

At this point I would say that Shauna Sylvester could very well be the first female mayor elected in the Vancouver’s history. For weeks now this neophyte in the world of public electoral politics has been saying publicly that she is actively considering running as an “independent candidate.” If you haven’t heard much about her, you will soon enough.

Rumours are rife that, to get ahead of the pack, she will be launching her campaign Thursday morning, April 5.

​I'll just add to this that in the days when Rankin became a lawyer, if you were a member of the Communist Party you would be denied entry to the bar. Therefore, in order to be accepted at the bar he had to deny connection to the Labour-Progressive Party, which was the name of the local Communist Party.

​At the same time, he was a member of the Communist University Club, but apparently that didn't count against him.

All this to say that Pogo is correct in saying Rankin was more of a 'fellow traveller' as the saying goes, but there was also a legal complication for him if he had admitted membership in the CP.

In fact, I remember once that issue came up, when someone criticised him for 'lying' about his membership in order to gain acceptance to the bar. He certainly never denied his political sympathies. He also did a lot of good back in the day. Wish there were more like him around now.

Rankin was a great politician. He was not afraid of his beliefs while at the same time understood the give and take of government. When Harcourt was Mayor, Rankin was almost political equal since he represented the largest block councillors.

edited to add that I just realized that I said 'friendly travellor'. Sigh...